A state district judge Thursday cleared Lubbock attorney Kevin Glasheen of professional misconduct, following a three-day disciplinary hearing.

A state district judge Thursday cleared Lubbock attorney Kevin Glasheen of professional misconduct, following a three-day disciplinary hearing.

Judge Robin Darr decided the State Bar of Texas Commission for Lawyer Discipline failed to prove Glasheen acted inappropriately in his handling of two exoneree cases.

“It’s been a difficult case,” Darr said before announcing her decision. “At first blush, it looked very clear cut, but it’s not.”

The bar sued Glasheen, alleging the contingency fees he charged two Dallas exonerees were unconscionable.

Glasheen maintained his fees were justified for the work he performed, which included lobbying to pass the Timothy Cole Compensation Act and convincing the Internal Revenue Service to declare exoneree annuity payments non-taxable.

“Of course I’m real pleased to have that behind me and be able to tell the whole story,” Glasheen said.

He said the trial provided an opportunity to examine the issue in depth and put to rest the notion that all he did for his clients was fill out a one-page form.

Glasheen represented more than a dozen exonerees and leveraged the threat of their civil rights lawsuits against the city of Dallas to get the city to help back the Timothy Cole Act.

In the contracts, he had one percentage-based contingency fee for trying the actual civil rights suit and another for statutory compensation.

Stephen Phillips and Patrick Waller, the two clients whose complaints prompted the disciplinary hearing, elected to receive the statutory compensation.

They subsequently sued Glasheen, who countersued, over the fees outlined in the contract.

Glasheen settled both lawsuits last year, but the disciplinary hearing was conducted nonetheless.

The bar tried to prove Glasheen billed Waller and Phillips for work he did for other clients and that his fees were illegal because they were for lobbying and were based upon the total estimated amount the clients would receive, including the amount that was annuitized.

“The main issue was he wanted his money ‘now,’ ” said commission lawyer Paul Homburg III in his closing argument.

Jim Hund, one of Glasheen’s attorneys, asked Darr to consider the totality of the evidence and to judge the contracts based on what the parties knew at the time, not what is now known.

Hund also noted that many lawyers would have given up, faced with the uphill battle Glasheen undertook.

Glasheen attorney Don Dennis praised Glasheen’s work in his summation.

“If anything, this man’s efforts should be applauded, not punished,” Dennis said.

Glasheen said he wished he could have resolved the issues with his clients without so much contentious conflict, but that he stands by his actions.

“As far as the essence of what we did, we followed the best course that we could for our clients, and I think we did it legally and ethically,” Glasheen said.

The Commission for Lawyer Discipline would consider whether to appeal the decision to the 7th Court of Appeals in Amarillo, said Linda A. Acevedo, chief disciplinary counsel.